Ever since 1755 when LeRoy passed the discharge of a Leyden through the orbit of man and caused a visual percept, there has been a fascination with electrically elicited visual perception. The general concept of electrical stimulation of retinal cells to produce these flashes of light or phosphenes has been known for quite some time. Based on these general principles, some early attempts at devising a prosthesis for aiding the visually impaired have included attaching electrodes to the head or eyelids of patients. While some of these early attempts met with some limited success, these early prosthetic devices were large, bulky and could not produce adequate simulated vision to truly aid the visually impaired.
In the early 1930's, Foerster investigated the effect of electrically stimulating the exposed occipital pole of one cerebral hemisphere. He found that, when a point at the extreme occipital pole was stimulated, the patient perceived a small spot of light directly in front and motionless (a phosphene). Subsequently, Brindley and Lewin (1968) thoroughly studied electrical stimulation of the human occipital (visual) cortex. By varying the stimulation parameters, these investigators described in detail the location of the phosphenes produced relative to the specific region of the occipital cortex stimulated. These experiments demonstrated: (1) the consistent shape and position of phosphenes; (2) that increased stimulation pulse duration made phosphenes brighter; and (3) that there was no detectable interaction between neighboring electrodes which were as close as 2.4 mm apart.
As intraocular surgical techniques have advanced, it has become possible to apply stimulation on small groups and even on individual retinal cells to generate focused phosphenes through devices implanted within the eye itself. This has sparked renewed interest in developing methods and apparatuses to aid the visually impaired. Specifically, great effort has been expended in the area of intraocular visual prosthesis devices in an effort to restore vision in cases where blindness is caused by photoreceptor degenerative retinal diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa and age related macular degeneration which affect millions of people worldwide.
Neural tissue can be artificially stimulated and activated by prosthetic devices that pass pulses of electrical current through electrodes on such a device. The passage of current causes changes in electrical potentials across visual neuronal membranes, which can initiate visual neuron action potentials, which are the means of information transfer in the nervous system.
Based on this mechanism, it is possible to input information into the nervous system by coding the information as a sequence of electrical pulses which are relayed to the nervous system via the prosthetic device. In this way, it is possible to provide artificial sensations including vision.
One typical application of neural tissue stimulation is in the rehabilitation of the blind. Some forms of blindness involve selective loss of the light sensitive transducers of the retina. Other retinal neurons remain viable, however, and may be activated in the manner described above by placement of a prosthetic electrode device on the inner (toward the vitreous) retinal surface (epiretial). This placement must be mechanically stable, minimize the distance between the device electrodes and the visual neurons, and avoid undue compression of the visual neurons.
In 1986, Bullara (U.S. Pat. No. 4,573,481) patented an electrode assembly for surgical implantation on a nerve. The matrix was silicone with embedded iridium electrodes. The assembly fit around a nerve to stimulate it.
Dawson and Radtke stimulated cat's retina by direct electrical stimulation of the retinal ganglion cell layer. These experimenters placed nine and then fourteen electrodes upon the inner retinal layer (i.e., primarily the ganglion cell layer) of two cats. Their experiments suggested that electrical stimulation of the retina with 30 to 100 uA current resulted in visual cortical responses. These experiments were carried out with needle-shaped electrodes that penetrated the surface of the retina (see also U.S. Pat. No. 4,628,933 to Michelson).
The Michelson '933 apparatus includes an array of photosensitive devices on its surface that are connected to a plurality of electrodes positioned on the opposite surface of the device to stimulate the retina. These electrodes are disposed to form an array similar to a “bed of nails” having conductors which impinge directly on the retina to stimulate the retinal cells. U.S. Pat. No. 4,837,049 to Byers describes spike electrodes for neural stimulation. Each spike electrode pierces neural tissue for better electrical contact. U.S. Pat. No. 5,215,088 to Norman describes an array of spike electrodes for cortical stimulation. Each spike pierces cortical tissue for better electrical contact.
The art of implanting an intraocular prosthetic device to electrically stimulate the retina was advanced with the introduction of retinal tacks in retinal surgery. De Juan, et al. at Duke University Eye Center inserted retinal tacks into retinas in an effort to reattach retinas that had detached from the underlying choroid, which is the source of blood supply for the outer retina and thus the photoreceptors. See, e.g., E. de Juan, et al., 99 Am. J. Ophthalmol 272 (1985). These retinal tacks have proved to be biocompatible and remain embedded in the retina, and choroid/sclera, effectively pinning the retina against the choroid and the posterior aspects of the globe. Retinal tacks are one way to attach a retinal array to the retina. U.S. Pat. No. 5,109,844 to de Juan describes a flat electrode array placed against the retina for visual stimulation. U.S. Pat. No. 5,935,155 to Humayun describes a visual prosthesis for use with the flat retinal array described in de Juan.
In an implantable visual prosthesis system, the array attached to the retina is very rarely centered and perfectly oriented about the center of the visual field. When an implanted individual's eyes are at a neutral forward looking and level gaze, this is where the brain expects to see the image created by the electrical stimulation of the array. If the camera mounted on the subject's head is looking forward and level and the array is superior to the preferred location, this lack of correspondence between the real world scene and the location of perception will result in the image from the scene in the center of the camera image appearing to the subject as being inferior, which can cause confusion in the down stream visual processing systems such as the LGN (thalamus), superior colliculus, and visual cortex. Similar issues arise with temporal and nasal misalignment as well as rotation.
Further, imperfect position of the camera itself relative to the subject's head can cause the same problem.
In order to properly customize a visual prosthesis for each user, the amount of stimulation required to produce visual percepts (the stimulation threshold) must be measured for each electrode or group of electrodes. While many psychophysical methods for (general) threshold measurement exist, they suffer from known flaws, some of which become prohibitive when applied to threshold measurement for a visual prosthesis. For example, the Method of Constant Stimuli is an accurate but extremely inefficient method; its use is impractical for measuring stimulation thresholds for each individual electrode in a multi-electrode prosthesis. Methods of Adjustment suffer from habituation and anticipation errors; to mitigate the errors, multiple measurements must be made for each electrode, rendering the method impractical. Adaptive methods, in which the stimulus intensity is varied according to previous responses, can produce too narrow a range of stimulation intensity, resulting in a limited understanding of the true psychometric function.
Applicants have developed many methodologies for fitting an electrode array to a patient including: U.S. Pat. No. 8,271,091, for Visual prosthesis fitting; U.S. Pat. No. 8,195,301 Video configuration file editor for visual prosthesis fitting and related method; U.S. Pat. No. 8,190,267, for Fitting a neural prosthesis using impedance and electrode height; U.S. Pat. No. 8,180,454, for Fitting a neural prosthesis using impedance and electrode height; U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,011, for Visual prosthesis fitting; U.S. Pat. No. 7,818,064, for Fitting of brightness in a visual prosthesis; U.S. Pat. No. 7,738,962, for Fitting of brightness in a visual prosthesis; U.S. Pat. No. 7,493,169 for Automatic fitting for a visual prosthesis; U.S. Pat. No. 7,483,751, for Automatic fitting for a visual prosthesis. The preceding list includes both manual and automated fitting methods. Both have advantages and disadvantages. What is needed is a method that uses the best advantages of both manual and automatic fitting.